Causal Analysis of Fall Accidents in Hydraulic Engineering Based on Text Mining and Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory and Interpretative Structural Modeling
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This research examines the causes of fall accident type in hydraulic engineering projects. I have several concerns regarding the paper:
1. Why analyzing fall accidents is critical in specifically hydraulic engineering? Is there any specific reason? “Complexity” alone does not seem to address specific fall risks in hydraulic engineering. Airport projects are also complex, PPP projects are also complex, industrial projects are also complex, etc. Discuss both in abstract and introduction.
2. Please add full name of D-I in title and keywords
3. Line 38: “According to survey statistics from China's 2018 Safety Month, there were 61 recorded safety incidents” the number of all incidents in China in 2018 is 61? What does 61 stands for, and how many of them are in Hydraulic projects.
4. Hydraulic engineering is a huge term, what do you mean by hydraulic engineering? Which processes of hydraulic engineering poses significant risks?
5. In lines 42-52 the authors provided some examples of accidents in hydraulic engineering projects. Why did you choose these three accidents as examples? First example is related to construction of pile foundation, the second example is related to formwork installation in dam project, and the third example is related to steel construction. I don’t understand why these specific cases were chosen. Besides, the reader want to see some statistics regarding accidents in hydraulic engineering projects. How many accidents were recorded in China? How many of them in Hydraulic engineering projects? Which work type is observed to be the riskiest? The percentage of fatal accidents in these projects? I mean there are many vague points in the introduction of the manuscript.
6. Lines 57-92, the authors provided the literature review in a very straightforward way. XXX performed xxx, YYY conducted yyy, etc. The authors should develop a more comprehensive literature review that connects ideas between past research.
7. Please provide your novel aspects (compared to existing research) bullet by bullet at the end of introduction. Additionally, please provide their contributions to theory and practice, again bullet by bullet so that we can understand what are the novelties of this paper and how these can help improve theory and practice.
8. The authors should also provide a paragraph in the introduction section to summarize past research adopting similar methods but different project types (rather than hydraulic).
9. I understand that the identified causal factors directly came from the investigated accident reports. I agree investigating these reports to capture causal factors but you may have missed some causal factors due to not including diverging types of work packages. Therefore, improving your methodology with “literature review” would be useful.
10. There is no proper discussion and conclusion in the manuscript. In the discussion section, you should compare your results with existing research. You should locate your study with the existing knowledge. What was the findings of past research? What are the differences / similarities and how your research contribute to theory and practice. In conclusion, you should summarize your contributions and novel findings. You should also provide some recommendations for practitioners.
-
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the study, the text mining approach is used to obtain relevant and useful information from unstructured text data. To find the causal factors on fall from heights (FFH) fatal accident records of hydraulic engineering projects in China, 389 hydraulic engineering FFH accident investigation reports from 2010 to 2022 were collected from the websites of the large hydraulic companies and relevant administrative departments. The paper is novel and contributes to the current knowledge of accident investigation studies. The following minor suggestions should be resolved in a revised paper.
The acronyms such as FFH and DEMATEL given in the abstract also should be given in the main text with their full forms and then acronyms.
In the first paragraph, give some facts and numbers about construction and investment in the hydraulic engineering sector in China. Emphasize its importance on China’s recent economic growth and closing the energy deficit.
Page 2, lines 47-48. Please avoid using the full identity of private companies. Use some codes or other identifiers. It may be a cause for violating the conservation of personal information.
Page 2, line 55. Besides reference 15, cite the study of Sari et al. (2004) as a second alternative reference.
Sari, M., Duzgun, H. S. B., Karpuz, C., Selcuk, A. S. (2004). Accident analysis of two Turkish underground coal mines. Safety Science, 42(8), 675–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2003.11.002
Page 3, lines 89-90. Correct the sentence as “In conclusion, there is a lack of systematic and hierarchical research on the subject.”
Page 3, lines 110-113. Correct the sentence as “As shown in Table 1, 389 hydraulic engineering FFH accident investigation reports from 2010 to 2022 were collected from the websites of the large hydraulic companies and relevant administrative departments of various provinces and cities, as the corpus for text mining.”
Page 3, line 115. Give the acronym for fall from heights (FFH) when you first time used it in the text and do not repeat it again in the rest of the text. Just use FFH.
In Table 1, English usage needs improvement.
Page 5, line 151. Correct the sentence as “LDA topic model generation process is as follows:”
Page 6, line 172. Correct the sentence as “The formula of the perplexity degree is as follows:”
Page 7, lines 182-184. Correct the sentence as “By using the causal diagram to determine cause-and-effect relationships among factors in complex problems, DEMATEL can solve core problems quickly and effectively to improve performance on the basis of matrix operations [31].”
Page 11, lines 288-291. Correct the sentence as “Then, combining the results of relevant previous research, combining causes with similar meanings into one cause, and rationally determining the causes contributing to the accident in accordance with the principle of comprehensive application, 16 contributing factors of FFH accidents were obtained as shown in Table 2.”
In Table 2, change the title of R11 as “Self-confidence”. Also, the topic R13 title can be replaced by topic R2. There are also some contributing factors with very similar topics. Is it possible to merge them and decrease the number of casual factors? (i.e., R1 and R9, R4 and R7, and R6 and R10).
The formation of the direct impact matrix M, the normalized influence matrix G, the comprehensive influence matrix T, the reachable matrix K, and the comprehensive impact matrix T is confusing. Please indicate each step by putting the relevant step number on the top of the related matrix given. Or prepare a flowchart showing the matrix formed with their step numbers.
Page 15, line 311. Table 4 should be corrected as Table 3. Also, more information should be provided for the meaning and interpretation of terms used in Table 3.
Page 17, lines 339, 350, 362, use the lowercase letter for “Illegal operations R7” as “illegal operations R7”.
In Figure 8, put “Legend” term at the top of the box given below.
Page 19, lines 411-415. Revise the sentence as “This study utilized the FFH accident reports of hydraulic engineering to extract the main contributing factors by text mining technology. To provide a significant theoretical foundation for enhancing the safety of hydraulic engineering construction, the D-I method is applied for analyzing the key factors and multilevel causal transmission pathways in FFH accidents.”
Change the Section 4 title to “4. Conclusion”. The content is not related to a discussion section.
Some corrections to the text were provided in the report. However, the English of the paper can be further polished and improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
Thank you for making changes to improve your initial submission to WATER. I'm especially glad that you took my comments as positive thought on ways to make the paper more readable for a broader range of scholars.
